Sacrements vs Ordininace

Leprosy was also a disease that - under the Old Covenant - made one ritually and spiritually unclean and prevented one from partaking in the benefits of the covenant community; it meant permanent exclusion, just as sin permanently excludes us from God's Kingdom - unless it is removed. Therefore the typology is apt.

 

Actually the Orthodox Church does baptize by immersion...

In XC
-

 

Good thinking Matt!...:thumbsup:

In XC
-

 

annsni...Matt said...Therefore the typology is apt....do you know what typology means?

In XC
-

 

Agnus, no what you say or how clear you and Matt portray Naaman's experience as a type of baptism, Annsni and Marcia are not going to accept it because they don't want to. If they did, it would present them with questions they would prefer not to ponder, i.e., whether baptism may have salvific effect.

 

I disagree because Naaman is not given as an example of anything in the NT except physical healing. There are many, many OT references in the NT, and his is very brief.

You are being pretty presumptious. It is not because I don't "want to." How childish and condescending to say that.

I have not only pondered baptismal regeneration, I've discussed it, researched it, and debated it before. You assume I don't study the Bible or have not discussed this topic before? You are so wrong. It renders your statement above moot and false.

 

I think the best baptist equivalent to a sacramental view of baptism is the sinner's prayer. It is an action that in itself has no value in earning grace, but is an acceptance of the grace that Christ has earned for us.

 

Yeah, that and the altar call it is apart of. What happened is that baptism became associated with joining the church, and most people were not going to be officially joining at the end of the evangelistic rally, so something else then had to take the place of baptism, and that was the altar call, with the prayer made the actual point of salvation.
Before that, it was accompanied by baptism, so you really could say the person was saved when he was baptized. The split between baptism and the point of conversion was never ordained by God, but then that is what happened regardless, and we must realize the difference.

http://www.erictb.info/baptism.html

 

This is a novel view, at least to me. Could you cite others who hold this view, or is something you just came up with on your own?

The scriptures clearly show that baptism is the door to membership in a local church. Please explain how the altar call replaced baptism. I don't see it.

 

This is what happened in practice. Nobody today baptizes at an evangelistic rally, at least not in this country. In Acts, they did. Today, they use the altar call instead. It's not my idea; it's just what came to be.

 

I"m assuming you're referring to Acts 2, where thousands responded to Peter's preaching and were saved, then baptized. They were baptized into the church at Jerusalem. They responded to his sermon, not a separate altar call. In fact, it appears that his hearers interrupted Peter's sermon.

That's one reason Billy Graham urged new converts to find a church to affiliate with. He didn't baptize them because he wasn't a church, nor was his organization.

The ordinance of baptism was given by the Lord Jesus to his church in the Great Commission. It was the church standing there listening to him, and the authority to baptize was given to it and its successors.

 

My point there was that the baptismal regenerationists can point to Acts and say that baptism marked the point of conversion and thus salvation. So there was no separate "altar call" needed. But today, we do not baptize at the evangelistic rally for the reason you cited with Billy Graham. The Catholics and Church of Christ don't either for that reason, yet would insist that the convert is not really saved until the baptism.

 

Hi Tom: could you explain to me from the Scriptures how you see this?

It is a Baptist precept I am aware of but have never understood the Bible-based reasoning behind.

I realize that this is a "debate" forum but I would consider it in poor taste for me, as a former Baptist, to come here and argue with Baptists about Baptist precepts. I may share some impressions of your explanation, and/or ask further questions, but I do not plan to argue at length.

I would just like you to explain it to me. You see it as "clearly" taught, so that gave me hope that you can cite the passages and "clearly" explain the reasoning for this precept. No one has ever done that for me, and if you would give it a try, I would appreciate it.

If you do not have time, just let me know.

 

Darron, thanks for the question. I'm going to try to be brief, but also I want to be thorough.

First, I hold that baptism is a church ordinance, not a Christian ordinance. As such, the local church has been given the authority to administer the ordinance and determine whom it will baptize. The Great Commission contains Jesus' command to make disciples and baptize them. That command was given to the eleven, which were the material of the first church, established by Jesus during his earthly ministry.

In Acts 2:41 we see the pattern played out on the day of Pentecost.

Luke recorded that
1. They gladly received his word. That is, saved.
2. They were baptized
3. They were added to the church at Jerusalem.

This pattern is still with us today. Saved, baptized, added to the church.
without exception, every Baptist church member I know confesses Christ as Lord and is baptized. Salvation, baptism and church membership are inseparable.

Further, Paul wrote to the congregation at Corinth to "guard the ordinances." (I Cor 11:2) Paul is expressing a truth here, that the authority to baptize has been given to the church at Corinth--a local congregation.

The greatest area of debate in this area is, who has the authority to baptize? I hold that this question is every bit as important as the subject, the mode and the design. Jesus traveled a long way to be baptized by John, who had been given direct authority by God himself..

If the command to baptize is given to the apostles as individuals, we must remember that the individuals to whom it was given are all dead. I believe it was given to the apostles as the first church, and each succeeding church.

150 years ago, my view was the majority view among Baptists. I suspect it no longer is, but still has a significant number of adherents Even today, the huge majority of Baptist churches (actually any group claiming to be a Christian church) still require all converts to be baptized, and require that its members be baptized believers.

I'll stop here and give time for responses. I know some of you will be away from the BB on Christmas day. May all of you have a blessed day.

 

Darron,, I'm afraid we'll derail the OP by pursuing our discussion on baptism as the door to the local church. If you'd like, we can start a new thread devoted specifically to that subject.

 

Oops, double post.

 

Do me a favor.

I got baptized because I had already received grace.